ARCHIVED -  Decision CRTC 95-853

This page has been archived on the Web

Information identified as archived on the Web is for reference, research or recordkeeping purposes. Archived Decisions, Notices and Orders (DNOs) remain in effect except to the extent they are amended or reversed by the Commission, a court, or the government. The text of archived information has not been altered or updated after the date of archiving. Changes to DNOs are published as “dashes” to the original DNO number. Web pages that are archived on the Web are not subject to the Government of Canada Web Standards. As per the Communications Policy of the Government of Canada, you can request alternate formats by contacting us.

Decision

Ottawa, 24 November 1995
Decision CRTC 95-853
Saskatoon Family Network Inc.
Saskatoon, Saskatchewan - 940907900
Proposed Over-the-Air Television Station Devoted to Religious Programming - Denied
Following a Public Hearing in Winnipeg beginning on 5 June 1995, the Commission denies the application by Saskatoon Family Network Inc. (SFN) for a broadcasting licence to carry on an English-language television programming undertaking at Saskatoon, operating on channel 33 with an effective radiated power of 23,400 watts, to broadcast religious programming from local studios and other Canadian sources, as well as programming originating from foreign sources.
In further decisions issued today, the Commission has denied six other applications for licences to carry on new religious, over-the-air television programming undertakings at various locations in western Canada. Today's decisions are accompanied by an introductory public notice, which provides a summary of the Commission's religious broadcasting policy and its background, and highlights certain of the concerns common to many of the applications considered at the Winnipeg Public Hearing (see Public Notice CRTC 1995-198).
Balance
The Broadcasting Act (the Act) specifies that programming offered by the Canadian broadcasting system should provide a reasonable opportunity for the public to be exposed to the expression of differing views on matters of public concern. The Commission generally expects that, in order to satisfy this requirement, licensees of over-the-air undertakings devoted to religious programming should, in particular, expose the audience to different points of view on religion. The Commission generally takes the view that balance will be achieved where a reasonably consistent viewer or listener is exposed to a spectrum of views on issues of public concern within a reasonable period of time.
The Commission notes that, over the course of the application process, SFN changed its programming plans several times, particularly with respect to the broadcast of balance programming. At the hearing, SFN submitted revised proposals that reflected those previously presented to the Commission by Victory Christian Fellowship in its application for a licence for a single-faith, over-the-air television station at Lethbridge, Alberta (approved in Decision CRTC 95-129). Having carefully reviewed all of the evidence, the Commission considers that SFN has not substantiated its proposals with concrete, viable programming plans. The Commission is, therefore, not convinced that SFN would be able to implement them.
SFN made a commitment to broadcast 14 hours each week of balance programming, including 3 hours 30 minutes of this programming between 6:00 p.m. and midnight. The Commission, however, is not convinced that all of the programs proposed by SFN as being ones that would present alternative viewpoints would actually provide balance. As part of its balance commitment, SFN proposed to produce "Public Forum", which would consist of interviews and discussions, as well as an open-line, call-in segment presenting different perspectives on topics of public concern, including religion. While SFN was able to discuss its proposals on a general level, the Commission is not satisfied that the applicant demonstrated that it has concrete and viable plans to implement its proposals. For example, SFN did not sufficiently elaborate on its proposal to assure the Commission that different view points would be presented, including those of other faith groups. Further, SFN provided no evidence that it had contacted potential guests from other faith groups, or that they would be prepared to participate.
SFN also proposed to air "Good News for You", a talk show featuring music and interviews with guests, and "Good News Tonight", a news program reporting on religious news of all faiths. The applicant, however, failed to offer details on how it would implement its proposals sufficient to convince the Commission that balance would be provided. For example, the applicant did not elaborate on the nature and format of these programs, or specify how much programming would reflect non-Christian perspectives.
SFN also proposed to provide balance through the broadcast of "Crown Video Documentaries", a documentary series that the applicant claimed would address topics of public concern and would portray various faith groups. The Commission, however, is not satisfied that SFN provided sufficient information regarding the nature of these documentaries. Moreover, SFN did not indicate how many documentaries in the series would reflect perspectives of other faith groups.
According to the applicant, further balance would be provided through its plans to make available 7 hours of air time each week to other local, faith groups, including 4 hours that would be reserved for non-Christian faith groups. It also indicated that it would continue to solicit programming from other faith groups and that it would subsidize productions by those groups, lend them equipment and give them technical help.
While the Commission considers that fulfilment of SFN's commitments to broadcast programming by other local faith groups would contribute to achieving balance on the proposed station, the applicant failed to provide evidence of a willingness on the part of a sufficient number of other faith groups to involve themselves in the proposed station's programming activities. The Commission notes further that SFN filed only two letters from non-Christian groups indicating a commitment to participate in the proposed station. Accordingly, the Commission questions whether SFN would be able to fulfil these commitments in an effective manner. Moreover, SFN did not provide any back-up proposals to ensure alternative viewpoints would be presented in the event that other faith groups were not willing to provide programming.
Ethics
The Commission expects licensees to ensure that all religious programming broadcast on their undertakings complies with the guidelines on ethics set out in Public Notice CRTC 1993-78.
SFN stated that it would establish a Regulatory Review Committee to ensure that the proposed station would operate in compliance with the guidelines on ethics. Members of the Regulatory Review Committee would spot-check programming randomly and report to the Committee bi-monthly.
According to SFN, its policy manual outlines the mechanisms that it would use to monitor compliance with the guidelines. While the Commission considers that the procedures outlined in SFN's policy manual to deal with infractions of the guidelines on ethics are adequate, it is not satisfied that SFN has provided clear and detailed plans in its policy manual or in its presentation at the hearing regarding how it would detect any such infractions or otherwise monitor compliance with the guidelines.
Business Plan
At the hearing, SFN stated that, although it had made provision for brokered programming sales in its business plan, it would not accept any programming, foreign or Canadian, brokered or made available to it without charge, that solicits funds over-the-air. SFN further stated that it would allow the direct solicitation of funds solely during station-produced programming, and that the only promotions it would allow in other programming broadcast on its proposed station would be for religious products.
The Commission notes, however, that some of the programs SFN plans to receive from the U.S. religious programming service, Trinity Broadcasting Network, do solicit funds by means other than the promotion of religious products. Moreover, the Commission notes that producers who pay to air their programming generally solicit funds to maintain their programs.
In the Commission's view, this and the other inconsistencies noted above raise questions regarding the adequacy of the applicant's overall planning and preparation, and place in further doubt SFN's ability to meet its commitments, particularly with respect to the provision of balance programming on a consistent, long-term basis.
Conclusion
In view of all of the foregoing, the Commission is not satisfied that an approval would serve the objectives of the Act and, accordingly, denies this application.
The Commission acknowledges the many interventions submitted both in support of and in opposition to this application, and the applicant's responses thereto.
Allan J. Darling
Secretary General

Date modified: